finance_capital_structure_cost_of_capital

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating it routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not describe side effects, response behavior, or what the open-world/destructive nature entails, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the action name and routing context, and ends with a clean Args list. It avoids excessive detail and the structure is easy to scan. The only slight waste is the first sentence being redundant with the tool name, but overall it is concise and well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description fails to explain what 'capital structure cost of capital' actually does or what kind of objectives should be passed in the message. Among hundreds of sibling tools, there is no plain-language description to help an agent judge this as the right tool. The routing and parameter list alone are not enough for confident selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is helpful but leaves the structure of 'inputs' undefined, and no guidance is given on example keys or expected formats, so the compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description's first sentence is a near-tautology: it just names the action and says 'Run' it, restating the tool name without explaining what the action does for the user. It adds routing/scoping context, but never states the business purpose, such as analyzing capital structure or calculating cost of capital. An agent would have to infer the intended outcome from the tool name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are dozens of sibling finance tools (e.g., finance_capital_allocation_analysis, finance_working_capital_efficiency), but the description does not mention any of them or provide selection criteria. It only implies general use via a free-text objective, which is insufficient for routing an agent to the right tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.